John Pollinger will remain on the Aug. 14 ballot as a Republican candidate for Flager County Sheriff, Circuit Court Judge Dennis Craig ruled Tuesday afternoon.

The judge rendered his decision just after 3 p.m., orally, after taking a 15-minute break, following 75 minutes of arguments from both sides. The decision is a stinging defeat for Anne-Marie Shaffer, who brought the suit against Pollinger, and supporters of Ray Stevens, another Republican candidate for sheriff.

If there was any hint in how Craig was going to rule, it was in the questions he posed lawyers for each side: he was in search of malice on Pollinger’s part, regarding the candidate’s registration history. Craig didn’t find it.

Shaffer’s attorney said she will be appealing the decision, but that move is largely moot in so far as the Aug. 14 election is concerned, since the court of appeal is not likely to hear the case, or render a decision, that quickly. Craig’s decision certifies the Aug. 14 ballot as it was sent out by the supervisor of elections: the three candidates for sheriff on the Republican ballot are incumbent Don Fleming, Pollinger, and Ray Stevens, who played a role in the challenge to Pollinger’s qualifications as a Republican. (Two Democrats are in the running.)

The lawyers for both sides argued their case for summary judgment, reiterating what they’d said before, all of which came down to this: to Shaffer, Pollinger has no right to be on the Aug. 14 ballot as a Republican because he broke the law by lying about his oath. To Pollinger, he has every right to be on the ballot since he has been a legally registered Republican in Flagler County since 2009. The whole case, Pollinger’s lawyer said, rests on “a stale outdated voter registration that nobody knew about” until the election season, when Pollinger decided to run for sheriff and an opponent found it expedient to keep him from the ballot.

As at a wedding, Pollinger’s supporters sat in pews on one side of the courtroom, SHaffer’s supporters, very likely Stevens supporters as well, sat on the other side, outnumbered about five to one.

Craig asked Kaney if Pollinger has been living in Florida for the last three years and has been registered in Florida for the past three years, whether he could still vote in New Jersey. Kaney said yes: he could. “So he could pick and choose?” Kaney said he had a valid New Jersey registration, so he could. Craig asked if there was any dispute about Pollinger’s residency status in Palm Coast. Kaney said there is evidence that he has not voted in New Jersey. Kaney also said he was not disputing Pollinger’s permanent residency in Palm Coast for the past three years–or the judge’s statement that in Florida, a voter may not be registered in two parties at the same time.

“Out of all those voters who are registered in two states, I wonder how many of them have different party affiliations,” Craig said. He also asked Kaney whether he’d ever figured out why Pollinger’s registration had not been “terminated” in new Jersey. Kaney said Pollinger did not give his name and last address where last registered. “He didn’t do what he needed to do,” Kaney said. Yet Pollinger turned in his New Jersey driver’s license, the judge noted. Still, Kaney stressed, Pollinger “did not trigger” the correction to his voting registration status in New Jersey.

Hertel countered that line of argument by telling the judge that Pollinger at no time attempted to hide information from the motor voter clerk who took his initial information, when he changed his registration from new Jersey to Florida. Pollinger, Hertel said, was simply not asked any questions about his previous registration address. Indeed, that question isn’t part of the questions clerks at motor voter desks ask registrants in Florida. Hertel also filled in another hole: that New Jersey law does, in fact, require its voters to be legal residents of the state in order to vote. In other words, Pollinger could not have legally voted in New Jersey after moving to Florida. His remaining registration there was “a technicality,” Hertel said.

Kaney had also dismissed another claim in Pollinger’s response to the Shaffer suit: that Shaffer had “ulterior motives” for suing. The motive n play, Kaney said, is to keep Pollinger off the Republican side of the ballot. Pollinger’s contention is that the suit is politically motivated by Shaffer’s allegiance to Ray Stevens: removing Pollinger from the Republican ballot removes a major obstacle to Stevens winning that primary–assuming he could defeat Don Fleming, the incumbent sheriff, who is also a Republican.

“I have to take exception to this,” Hertel said, referring to Shaffer’s claim that the Department of State had rendered opinions regarding the Pollinger case. A lawyer at the Department of State had written Kimberle Weeks, the Flagler County Supervisor of Elections, emails that suggested Pollinger could be deemed not qualified, but that the matter would have to be settled in court. But those emails were not legal opinions, Hertel said–as a footer in each email clearly noted. Still, Shaffer’s case made use of those emails.

Hertel also argued that Shaffer had no standing, as a voter, to sue Pollinger. “There’s the obvious flood-gate argument that comes with that,” Hertel said: any voter could then file suits against candidates from opposite camps.

Addressing Shaffer’s “selfish” motives, Hertel recalled how months before the lawsuit, Ray Stevens had called the supervisor of elections to complain about Pollinger’s previous registration. Subsequently, Shaffer and allies went to work smearing Pollinger’s reputation on a website she set up. That’s her intention, Hertel said: “to destroy Pollinger’s character.”

The two sides ended their opening remarks after 75 minutes of arguments before Craig.

Throughout, Weeks, the elections supervisor, sat to the left of the judge against a wall, with her lawyer, since she was also named in Shaffer’s lawsuit.

I just wonder, as you do, who is behind Ms Shaffer and what they are trying to hide. When will she accept the fact that Mr. Pollinger has been a Florida resident who registered as a Republican in 2009. Many people move to the great State of Florida because it is a great place to live. How many would even think that they had to notify the State they came from they now have moved and live in another state. Notify the Post Office that’s it. Ronald Reagan, who was a Democrat before he saw the light, may be asking her to not use his name in a group she is a member of. If only he was here we would have less problems today.

What makes me sick is the great disgusting lengths people have taken to defame, slander and libel a good and decent human being. Politics is a bastard sport, however this takes everything to the extreme limits. Where is the respect and ethical conduct of a candidacy of Ray Stevens?

All I have heard these last 7 months why John Pollinger is not Republican enough. Never once has Mr. Stevens explained why he is best to be elected. He has taken this election and made this a vicious vendetta against a man who is a good and decent human being. Ray Stevens is behind this and comes to the polls with dirty hands.

Ray Stevens has disgraced the badge he wants to wear. For a man who wants to put back on the uniform to “serve and protect” he has stained everything holy about beings a law enforcement officer. Ray should be ashamed of his conduct. He has conducted himself in every way but that of a gentleman. Today, he should hang his head low in shame. I am embarrassed for him, and certainly embarrassed for Ann Marie Shaffer.

As the campaign now continues, I want to see all the candidates sell themselves. I want to hear who will do the better job and why the citizens of Flagler county will benefit from their candidacy. I want them to conduit themselves like gentleman and do what is in the best interest of Flagler County.

Some folks stop at nothing to win an election. It’s sad to see, in my opinion. Perhaps Schaffer’s financial backers will also send the Flagler County Commission the money it alloted for Week’s attorney, and the court costs as well.

Let’s have a good clean fight on the election. Let the people themselves choose. Those keenly interested voters will do the research necessary in figuring who they’d like to see as Sheriff.

One thing I can say is that I usually don’t harbor much respect for mudslingers. That might limit my choices on who to vote for. I moved in from a couple of years in Union County, and still think this is a fabulous community. I had Flagler pegged as a sleepy kind of place, politically. Now things are stirred up a bit.. Let’s see what happens in the primary – it’ll be interesting to see how this washes out.

All quiet from the RRR Club? They have wreaked havoc on this county. From bogus write in candidates in order to close deciding elections, to bogus lawsuits to bogus candidate endorsements. Follow the money. Even cash can be traced.

Shaffer served as a good puppet. She will no longer be needed by the RRR Club now. Stevens cooked his goose (if you will). Another one that is no longer needed by this club, however they are stuck with giving him the endorsement. What an embarrassment..Well, after all he is the only candidate that is a member.

I am disgusted by this last ditch effort to control Flagler County and take away the power of the people. The interest of the RRR Club is only for their benefit and not the good and welfare of the citizens

Make your voice be heard. Stand up and be counted. We as citizens hold all elected officials accountable for their actions and to speak on our behalf. Please do not let the RRR Club run this county. More time will be spent on their agenda then serving the people of Flagler County.

The RRR club does and will hold all elected candidates accountable and their “agenda” is one that any constitutional minded citizen could and should support. Unfortunately this Stevens/Pollinger issue got away from them, and my opinion is it was not handled properly. However, they have the ability to support any candidate they choose. The challenge going forward will be supporting the candidate even if they were not their preferred choice.

This goes to show that politics is not child’s play and you have to have thick skin. Winning is the primary objective and candidates will do whatever they can to gain an advantage. Even switch parties if they think it will help them. A democrat with an “R” next to their name is sometimes exactly that. And yes, it can work both ways.

The only qualified candidate for sheriff is John Pollinger who is a former chief . Mr Flemings tenure is coming to an end. Mr Stevens is not qualified as he never run a department. Mr Tozzi does not appear to have commanding officer experience either.Mr Manfre well thats a whole nother story. Vote Pollinger- fpr “Real Experience” and Real Change.

Anne-Marie Shaffer has done exactly what needed to be done that has never been done in Flagler County before. She vetted Candidate John Pollinger. Thats what the Republican Party does. They vett their candidates. What she also did was inform the electorate in this county that Mr. Pollinger has been a registered Democrat in New Jersey for 30 plus years. As a Centrist Republican myself, I commend Ms. Shaffer for questioning the Republican Candidate John Pollinger, in whether he would govern as the Democrat John Pollinger, if we were to be elected to Sheriff. Stay with me now people, because this is where the important stuff comes into play.

On any job application it will state that “You also agree to provide true, accurate, current and complete information about … to void (disqualifty) your application” or something very similar.

Vetting a candidate is even more important that the tax payers are hiring a person that claims to be what he says he is. Republican Candidate gets elected and turns around and governs like a Democrat….is a chance that the electorate in Flagler County has taken one too many times…. those days are over….

Flagler County has been infiltrated by candidates that ran on the Republican ticket and now run our county and city like the true Democrats that they are.. I ask you then, who is deceiving who? It’s either you are who you say you are, or you just have lied to your employer.

Now…..I have been in John Pollingers presence on many occasions. Many Republican events. Always a gentleman and a decent human being. Probably capable of being a Sheriff. I don’t doubt that. Not ever mentioning once that he was a registered Democrat for 30 plus years…….never discussed that he was a “Reagan Democrat”. Never mentioning that he “switched parties”. You would think that he had been a Republican and wouldn’t doubt that he would govern as a Republican…..until Anne-Marie Shaffer did her job…..Now what you say to yourself? Nice guy, but maybe not good for the job. We the People have the right to make that decision.

Following the story…. we have learned many things about Mr. Pollinger. Yes, I’ll keep reminding you that he is a nice decent human being….however, I often thought it we didn’t find out about Mr. Pollinger’s past voter registration as a Democrat…. would he have ever told us? I guess if we never asked, he wouldn’t mention it. I suppose there may be a little bit of trickery going on here…… but the question remains….how would he govern? Well, unfortunately his own Democratic local friends that currently hold office now, but ran as Republicans in the past… has ruined any chance for John Pollinger winning the Republican Primary. So you can blame the RINO’s that currently hold office in Flagler County for John Pollinger facing a possible defeat. I can’t vote for John….. we have been deceived one too many times.

If you really are interested in the truth….then do your own homework on this candidate. You will find that he had to resign his position in New Jersey as a law enforcement official, because he defended his liberal position on not getting more police protection at the voting booths in New Jersey, during a very nasty election year. Apparently was reprimanded for his actions and was forced to resign. He will tell you that he retired. Trickery? maybe not……..Deception? yes. Grounds to disqualify his job application? Most certainly.

Don’t give me that nonsense that this is any kind of mud-slinging, smearing, vendetta’s ……..just Vetting…

Read Here:

MIDDLETOWN – Police Chief John F. Pollinger resigned effective immediately Monday, accusing township officials of trying to force his retirement and calling the township administrator “morally corrupt.”
Pollinger, who has served as chief for nearly eight years, submitted his resignation following a dispute with Township Administrator Robert M. Czech over the past several months that escalated on Election Day when Czech placed Pollinger on leave for refusing to assign a police officer to a polling place.
Pollinger rescinded previous retirement plans after that, pending the outcome of an outside review over who has the authority to assign police officers.
“I refuse to answer one more memorandum or work one more day for a man I believe, lacks the ethical standards he imposed on others and in my opinion, is morally corrupt,” Pollinger wrote in a memo to Czech.
Czech issued a statement Monday accepting Pollinger’s immediate retirement and announcing the appointment of Deputy Chief Robert Oches as acting chief.
“As to the other gratuitous characterizations in the letter of retirement, they are simply inaccurate and unwarranted,” Czech said in a prepared statement.
“Full details of any prior disagreements as to Police Department policies and personnel deployment have been provided to the Monmouth County prosecutor and attorney general,” he said.
Czech also expressed confidence in Oches’ leadership.
“Oches, a 30-year veteran, has the education and the experience to lead the department and the transition is being effectuated smoothly,” Czech said.
Oches is in position to take over permanent leadership of the department after scoring highest on a civil service test for the job. The township requested the state offer the test to both deputy chiefs after Pollinger announced in July he planned to retire from his $130,286-a-year job.
Even though Pollinger rescinded his initial retirement, the township went forward with the test because the results remain valid for three years, officials said.
Procedure calls for Oches to undergo a psychological and medical review before he can be promoted, Township Attorney Bernard Reilly said.
Czech has the authority to appoint the new head of the Police Department, who will be sworn in before the Township Committee, Reilly said.
Abrupt departure
Pollinger left all of his police equipment including his radio, lap top, cellular telephone and keys to his chief’s car in his office after announcing his retirement, Oches said.
“I was surprised as everyone else,” Oches said, adding that he will “wait and see what happens next.”
Pollinger’s recent initiatives – including a program to notify parents of teenagers issued a ticket for traffic violations and his support of a ban on hand-held cellular phones while driving – had drawn a lot of support from residents.
“It was obvious to me that he had a concern for safety,” said Frank Badali, a township resident and retired insurance executive. “He had my admiration for that.”
But Pollinger had been locked in a dispute with township and county law enforcement officials that predated Election Day. He pulled the township Police Department out of the countywide SWAT team, sent a $10,000 check back to offset costs of participating in the program and withdrew from the anti-terrorism task force with the county without notifying township officials of his actions, according to municipal and county sources.
“The election day thing brought that to a head,” Reilly said. “There was a full detailing of the facts sent to the attorney general and the county prosecutor, and there was a request made that one of the higher law enforcement authorities pass judgment on whose position was correct.”
Pollinger also had been involved in a dispute with the township administrator over the Police Department Web site and granting leave for Lt. Michael Cerame to participate in the Law Enforcement Torch Run for Special Olympics, according to township officials and documents.
Review is `moot’
Prosecutor John Kaye said Monday he did not expect the review of Pollinger’s dispute with Czech to take place now. “The chief’s resignation makes it moot,” Kaye said.
The Attorney General’s Office had asked the Prosecutor Office’s to complete the review, Kaye said.
Any disagreements between his office and Pollinger “are in the past,” Kaye said.
“I think Chief Pollinger’s contributions to the county have been significant, and they will be remembered for many years,” Kaye said.
Pollinger could not be reached for additional comment Monday.
Local attorney Larry Loigman, however, welcomed Pollinger’s resignation.
“It was a mistake for them to have appointed him, and I am glad he has helped them rectify their own error,” said Loigman, who has been involved with numerous lawsuits in the township and who has testified against Pollinger in cases.
Andrea Alexander: (732) 888-2621 or andrea@app.com
Reproduced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

If I were candidate Ray Stevens, and I found out this information…. I would have given this to the press……Ray Stevens never did….. and yet he is being accused of dirty campaigning.

This is the work of the people …..the campaigners ……to vett their candidates… and when they find deception….they may dig a little more:

A letter from an anonymous source American Legion post 115

1. Mr. Pollinger accepted a vote to serve as commander of American Legion post 115. A vote is taken only after a candidate agrees to serve in the position offered. Date: July 2009.

2. He went north to NJ for family issues early that Autumn and we lost contact with him. He returned to FL late that year.

3. The post historically has it’s significant fund raising activity every January and the commander is key to planning, organizing, and coordinating this most important fundraiser. In September, he was given a list of activities that historically are required for a successful event and the first activity is an organizational meeting during that month.

4. Except for one member, no one was able to make contact with Pollinger after he returned from his trip north in spite of numerous email and telephone inquiries. In December, he finally responded to the one member with the a cryptic statement that he resigned. He later generated a letter with a single sentence to that effect.

5. Until his abrupt resignation, he gave every appearance of being an energetic and capable leader, with progressive ideas. I was most favorably impressed with him until he failed to perform as promised and expected.

6. While I hold no animosity toward him, and wish him well in his personal life, I cannot in any way support him for such an important position as Sherriff.

Appears to me that the Republicans are doing there job……..Please someone explain to me why Anne-Marie Shaffer has no right to be concerned about this candidate who is running on the Republican ticket? I’m quite impressed with her courage to come forward and challenge this. The voters have a right to know who they are voting for…

By the way…..all this information was forwarded to the local press by the vetting organization, and the press refused to report this. So where do the voters get fair and accurate reporting? By members of their own party that look out for them.

The Florida Law States:

{ That the person has not been a registered member of any other political party for 365 days before the beginning of qualifying preceding the general election for which the person seeks to qualify. }

I want someone to please explain to me …..why it is okay to smear a concerned mother and rip her apart in the media because she challenged a man that is applying for our county top Law Enforcement Official in Flagler County? Reporting that her home where she raises her children not elaborate enough have an elaborate matching bank account to bring such a costly lawsuit to such a stand up prominent man.

Flaglerlive wrote: Pollinger’s contention is that the suit is politically motivated by Shaffer’s allegiance to Ray Stevens: removing Pollinger from the Republican ballot removes a major obstacle to Stevens winning that primary–assuming he could defeat Don Fleming, the incumbent sheriff, who is also a Republican.

LOL

I have a better story for all you fair and balanced reporters out there. Maybe instead of attacking Anne-Marie Shaffer, you should look into real scum of this story. I would like to see Flaglerlive be the reporting agency to get the opportunity to break the real story, before the print media gets their hands on it. It’s the oldest campaign trick in the book, and the incumbent hordes thought that the people of Flagler were too dumb to figure it out.

Fleming’s re-election campaign was in deep trouble. Fleming and Pollinger (The Jersey Boys) made the deal for Pollinger to get into the Sheriff’s race and to have Pollinger absorb and split the anti-Fleming vote….its called the spoiler….however, its usually benefits the incumbent and defeats the challenger. In this case that would hurt the challenger Ray Stevens.

Perfect Political Strategy. One problem though. The Fischer case. Game Changer and now the top two candidates are Pollinger & Stevens. Fleming having no chances to win, decides that the only way he can remain in control of the FCSO……he will throw all his weight behind Pollinger….. defeating Ray Stevens and Pollinger guaranteeing Fleming the second in command position.

You’ll never catch Fleming saying a bad word about Pollinger and Pollinger never saying a bad word about Fleming on the campaign trail. Why? Because that deal was made. On the other hand… Ray Stevens and his impeccable record as a law enforcement officer for over 25 years….. will fall victim to this disgusting scheme and so will the voters of Flagler County.

Now I ask you, who are the deceivers here?

Again, it’s the oldest campaign trick in the book and these two Jersey Boys are high-fiven each other, and laughing like the two hyenas thinking that they got it over on the Flagler County voters, again. Now how does that make you feel?

Well, this dumbass decided to dig a little bit further. Here are some hints for our Investigative Reporters in Flagler & Volusia… Can’t believe I have to show you where to look.

75 minutes worth of testimony in the courtroom today and Judge Craig rendered his decision in 15 minutes.

Look into who was Judge Craig’s political adviser & campaign manager in Flagler when he ran his campaign back in 2010.

Look into who is currently a political adviser for John Pollinger’s Campaign.

Now assuming that Craig and Pollinger are both Republicans, take this political adviser and attend a forum for the current Judges Candidates……you’ll see this political adviser campaigning for the Democrat Dwyer…..who is partners with the law firm Chiumento Selis Dwyer………that so happens to be representing John Pollinger in the case Anne-Marie Shaffer vs. John F. Pollinger.

Now that is one political hack that needs to be taken down and exposed.

This is exactly why the Ronald Reagan Republican Assemblies was formed in Flagler County, to protect our Republican Party from the liberal moles, Rinos and Political Hacks that have infiltrated our party, and got elected under the Republican brand name and have deceived our electorate in the worst possible way.

The Ronald Reagan Assembly was also formed because of the same moles, Rinos and political hacks that had power in Flagler County Republican Party and denied membership to over 30 respected Republicans in the county, so they could continue to dictate to our party what liberal candidates they were going to endorse and get elected. They couldn’t continue to spew their RINO agenda on us and if God for bid they were to allow a true Republican come on board. They continued to have the same 25 Committeemen & Committeewoman for the last 12 years in a county that had over 120 open committeeman & committeewoman seats available…… of which they refused to fill. Our grassroots should have had over 140 precinct captains in the 2008 elections and instead had only 25 precinct captains. You tell me how this is working out for our party? No wonder why we lost Flagler County in 2008. Those days are over.

Another high profile case in Flagler that did not end well for the Republicans in the courts….however I understand now this case was finally settled.

To sit here and read that Anne-Marie Shaffer is the bad guy, Ray Stevens, The Ronald Reagan Republican Assembly and its 100 plus members are the right wing extremists… mud-slinging, smear-mongering conspirators….. accusing these people for funding the lawsuit that Ms. Shaffer has brought forth ……painting her as a vilian…..Fleming and Pollinger are right…. You are pretty dumb….

Robert Lewis, lay off the mother of four…. she came forward with the law, and the law was ignored in this case. Anne-Marie Shaffer and Ray Stevens are the good guys here.

I gave you all the clues that you need to find the truth in all of this. I can’t believe none of you reporters in 2 counties could never get this story straight.

A deal between Fleming and Pollinger? A “spoiler” does not spend in excess of 20,000 dollars for his campaign and then some for lawyer fees to help some someone else win. If your story were true Pollinger could and would have dropped out prior to taking a hit in the wallet to defend against this failed attempt at character assassination. People, watch for when the forums are and go. Listen to the candidates and make up your own minds. Be an informed voter.

Forgot to add that Fleming as second in command is laughable. Not only because it isn’t true, but because the second in command is bound by all the same training regulations as every other deputy (a Sheriff is exempt). Fleming is 66 years old. If he loses the primary hes done and will go on with his retired life.

Wow Andraste this is truly selective journalism at its best. I have to say, you and your cronies have truly done a diservice to the Republican party, as well as the memory of Ronald Regan. I am a life long republican and I must tell you, your antics disgust me. If you truly want to vette our candiates, how about we start with their abilities and capacity to carry out the posistion for which they are running. I say a small town LT, retired for twenty years would not have the first clue how to run a sheriffs office. You want to vette Mr Andraste? What qualifies you or you orgaization to speak for the rest of the republican popluation out here? Who are you to vette anyone?. Are you so elitist that you believe only you and your cronies know what is good for the Republican party? And Linda H , the reason the press did not pick up this nonsense is that they probably fear reprisal if they were to print something that is not completely accurate, or maybe slanted. Do your homework, research it for yourself. The way this stands today the RRR has no credibilty whatsoverer ouside of there own little click. “Purity of the Party”? Ccleanisng of the party”? Are you for real? Do you realize what those terms conjer up?

I must say I was all for Stevens prior to what I believe are Steven antics….My vote is for sure NOW with Pollinger!! I am so very proud to say he has stayed a gentlemen through all of this!! GOOD LUCK Mr. Pollinger!!

Palm Coaster, This county is so filled with the GOOD OLE BOYS, and you think you are voting in officials that care for you, you are mistaken. All they care about are there big fat salaries they are collecting, they do not care about you. That is why our county is running in a deficit.

I’ll admit though, when I read “Flagler County has been infiltrated by candidates…” that Anne Marie’s “purist” comment came to mind.

One of the great things about America is that people from all walks of life have the opportunity to succeed. As people grow and learn in life, sometimes they see things differently than their parents’, or than they did in their youth. Sometimes R’s become D’s. Sometimes D’s become R’s. Various reasons cause that to happen. People aren’t locked in for life to thinking and acting the same way.

It would seem that to satisfy the RRRAofFC, that DNA testing at birth would need to be followed by at least annual purity review blood tests to assure the Assembly that the individual wasn’t straying from the allowed set of beliefs.

You have some strong statements regarding Mr. Fleming and Mr. Pollinger. Sure hope you can back them up. You see, rumors are a terrible thing and anyone spreading them brings their character into play. I admire both Mr. Fleming and Mr. Pollinger for being of good moral beliefs and not being involved with shady politics against each other.

Back to Ms. Shaffer, Mr. Stevens and the RRR club. They knew something had to be done no matter how low they had to go to do it. It was a desperate failed attempt to discredit anyone in Mr. Stevens way. Ms. Shaffer has been used and most certainly did not think this through. Mr. Stevens did not have a chance 4 years ago as an NPA and has no chance this go around as a (republican?). Is his blood red enough yet? Nah, he was just the only sheriff candidate that joined the RRR. Where all the candidates “vetted” by the RRR club? No, just their members. Is that truly a way to find the best candidate for a position? Of course not. MANY candidates were not considered simply because they are not members of the RRR. Yet the RRR club calls themselves republican. All republican candidates should have been considered for endorsement if they really cared about the best qualified person for the position they are seeking. Not that all republican candidates would have accepted the endorsement. I’ve said it before. Who wants to be associated with a club that shuts out the voting public. And you call us stupid? Quite the contrary.

I find the words “purity” and “cleansed” offensive, not just personally but publicly as well. This is what Ms. Shaffer, Mr. Stevens and all endorsed candidates and members of the RRR believe in. Sad really.

Mr. Fleming and Mr. Pollinger, as well as your husband Ken Mazzie, were all offered the opportunity to participate in our vetting process and chose not to do so. Let’s get our facts straight here, Donna.

The only one who should be commended is you. I applaud you for efforts and your friendship to Anne Marie and Ray. You have done your friends a great service by continuing to spit out their hate speech.

As for the concept of a political deal. This has been one of the first rumors forged by Ray Stevens. He even admits in previous stories how he believe there is a deal. If there is a deal is it anything like the Write-in voter sham being orchestrated by the Ronald Reagan Extremist? If there is a deal, what logical person would invest their own money? Your conspiracy theory sounds great on paper, but the totality of the rumor is as baseless as Anne Maries law suit.

As for candidate vetting. This is the United States of America, the land of the free. If a person wants to run for office it is their right. Anne Marie is not the Republican Party. The Ronald Reagan Fundamentalist are not the Republican Party. The Republican Party is comprised of the electorate. Those registered by Florida Law as a “republican”. It is their right to decide who will receive the party nomination. Quiet frankly, your entire message is defective because it displays your intolerance of others. Your groups message is interpreted as “follow my way, the only way, or be destroyed”. Are you Republicans or are you terrorist? It seems to me that the Ronald Reagan Fundamentalist is an organizational terrorist group created to infiltrate and destroy the Republican Party.

I can only assume that had this group been created earlier in history, they would have stood on the wrong side of segregation, equal rights and women suffrage. After all by past practices exemplified your group, it seems they want to cleanse the republican party of those who don’t share your exact values. Would your group have allows Rudy Giuliani to be Mayor of New York? I assume no because maybe he was a RINO or a mole and once a democrat.

As a Republican, you and your group has destroyed the strength of our party. We now go towards the general election weak and divided. We face democratic opposition wounded because our own party has turned against each other. “A house divided against itself can not stand” and a party divided against itself can not stand.

Enough is enough. It is time to get out of the mud and do what is right. Stop carrying on the torch of hatred and start rebuilding this party. Stop with the conspiracy theories and making up crap. The voters do not care and they are very tired of this crap. People want a clean campaign.

As far as laying off a mother of four, Anne Marie is not a victim here. Let’s not even begin to start that crap. She is an instigator. She creates a blog, hid behind an alias called the Researcher and spouted out hate. She called libeled Mr. Pollingers good name to destroy his character. She shows up in the court of law with unclean hands. She masks herself as a concerned citizen when in reality she is carrying out marching orders. She is no victim, she is a pawn. She drank the koolaid of hatred and started a nasty campaign. She should be ashamed of her conduct. She has drawn attention to herself and made comments in the media. She deserves all the grief she is getting for this situation.

Lastly, I laugh at the accusation of wrong doing of Judge Craig. I can honestly say, I have never met the man in person. But I did research him. You know what I found? What a kind and decent human being he is. I watched some of his interviews on YouTube. He conducts himself in a professional manner. Judge Craig is someone that walks softly while carrying a heavy stick. He does not have to excercise his power in excess, like so many others try to do when elected. To even begin to say he has done anything unethical is an insult to the judicial system.

It seems to me that who ever disagree with you must be a RINO. I am rather ashamed to call myself a Republicsn with people in the Ronald Reagan Fundamentalist leading the way. In fact, I am sorry that you’re all so angry with life, that you must make hell for others.

I pray for you that all of you may find kindness and charity on your hearts
I pray that all of you find the love of God and do what is right for the people, not ones own selfish politically motivated agenda.

You are correct, Mr. Lewis. Thank goodness this is the United States of America and we are free to disagree. ALL REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES were offered the oppportunity to fill out a questionaire and participate in our vetting process.

However, the rules state you must do so in order to be considered. We will have to agree that we disagree.

@ PalmCoast >>> LOL You are way to transparent. You were never for Stevens. Please, Please I am begging everyone to just listen to the facts. Mr. Stevens did not break this news. I posted that information because it’s factual. Lets not play the blame game. Now, lets place blame where blame is due…..It starts with deception, and with that comes questions. All you have too do is dig a bit further to find the truth. I can turn right back at you buddy and accuse you of being a Pollinger supporter, however I frankly don’t care who you are supporting. I personally have been vetting candidates for many years. It didn’t take long for me to look into the two high profile court cases that have been making news in Flagler County, both of which are quite interesting. But what I discovered was that out of all the stories I have been following….there was absolutely no truth in them. So you keep digging…

Truth hurts sometimes. Remember, men died to protect our rights to vote. With voting, comes vetting. Vetting is the most important process in deciding the best qualified person for the job. How on earth is looking into someones backround for a job, a despicable campaign tactic? Unless its something they were trying to hide.

@ Ray Thorne >>> I have just got done reading the last paragraph in this story. quote: ****** The question of who is funding Shaffer’s efforts was not addressed. ****

So, its okay to ask who is funding Anne-Marie Shaffer’s lawsuit against Pollinger, diminishing her by saying this poor girl can’t possibly be funding this lawsuit by herself. This of which I find disgraceful to paint this woman to be in some sort of conspiracy against Pollinger. So whats good for the goose?

It must be a conspiracy. And those Ronald Reagan Rich Republicans must be help funding this lawsuit because poor Anne-Marie Shaffer can’t possibly be funding this on her own. Next rumor will be is that she is on the food stamp program. I take that as an assault on all women who ever decided to challenge a Good O’le Boys Network. I wouldn’t under estimate this lady. If you ask me, she’s got moxy.

As for the conspiracy theories that are floating out there. What I have seen so far? Thats what happens when a campaign has an empty message. They attack their opponent.

Wow, there is so much hatred being spewed around here. My post was not intended to do that. There was not one thing that I posted that is not factual. Truly folks. This is not an attempt to smear Mr. Pollinger. It was important to post some facts that were never mentioned in all the news articles that were printed on this lawsuit. How many puff pieces were printed on Pollinger? Ten, Twelve? I lost count. I never read a piece that painted Mr. Pollinger in a bad light. Never. Infact John Pollinger just may take this election on the sympathy vote, because he was made out to be the victim. You will find in every single article published in the Daytona Beach News Journal and the Palm Coast Observer practically chaining Ray Stevens to a stake, torching the brush and setting him on fire as he were some kind evil vampire. Lets not forget the silver stake through the heart, without a care in the world for this mans family.

Anne-Marie Shaffer has been publicly gang raped by every single news outlet in these two counties. She has been called everything from a political whore, to the most humiliating things that you can call a woman. A wife and mother of 4 children. There was never a puff piece written on neither Mr. Stevens or Mrs. Shaffer. If Stevens wins this election, its because he won it on his own merits without any help from the press at all.

I post a few facts about your candidate and again, you blame Stevens, Shaffe and The Ronald Reagan Assembly. They had nothing to do with what I posted. I have just proven that the Pollinger supporters are the real Dirty Campaigners here. But I can assure you, they are not the brightest.

There also seems to be an all out assault on this Ronald Reagan Assembly. They have nothing to do with what I posted either. But you all have made up your minds that you are going to attack a particular group or individuals, or candidates that you don’t agree with and fill it with hate. My campaign advice to Mr. Pollinger would be to re-group, get them under control and lay off the attacks. Like I said before, he may win the sympathy vote. However he is up against some hard core professional campaigners and he is not going to see the brick wall he is about to hit. That is not a threat in anyway. Just my experience with working with professional campaigners.

I have been attacked on so many entries that were posted here. Lets keep it that way and not go after the people that had nothing to do with what I posted. I don’t work for Ray Stevens. I don’t work for Anne-Marie Shaffer. I work for myself and if any of you have a problem with that, you can address me personally. I am up for any debate that is filled with substance and facts at anytime.

@ Donna Heiss I don’t believe that we’ve never met before. However, I have met your husband Mr. Mazzie in the past and wish him well on his campaign for the Clerk of Court. I’ve had heard some nasty rumors about him as well and I find them to be cheap, half-truths and unacceptable. However, it appears that everything they tried to throw at him will not stick. Good for him. What I did hear was that he was a newcomer to the Republican Party and this was also factually wrong. A lifelong Republican, with every right to run on the Republican ticket. Don’t let anyone else tell you otherwise.

Please keep in mind that my post on Fleming, Pollinger and Stevens has absolutely nothing to do with The Ken Mazzie Campaign. As a previous campaign manager myself, you always stay focused on your campaign, and your campaign only. Keep your campaign distant and detached it from all the other campaigns. Even if you personally want to express your support for another candidate, keep it on the down-low. This will safe-guard your husbands campaign.

Without you getting upset with me, I can’t help but notice that you are quite unhappy with this Ronald Reagan Group. So sorry to hear that you had a bad experience. Don’t let it get in the way of your campaign. Just move on. You have more important things to think about. One thing I have to say in their defense is that most of those people are the nicest people you would ever meet. Then you got those hardcore campaigners. You just need to know how to separate the two.

In defense of Linda H. If it is the same Linda H. I am thinking of, she so happens to be one of the finest ladies you will ever meet.

Lastly…..you mention in your post that you know who I am. Well you don’t. I don’t know you. If I wanted my identity posted here, I would have posted my last name. Because of the attacks I knew I was going to receive after posting my findings on John Pollinger, my identity needs to be left on a first name basis only. I have my children to protect that live in this community, and they don’t need to be subjected to any of my political involvement. Remember, my post had nothing to do with your husbands campaign.

Linda H, you are the one who does not have the facts straight. Mr. Fleming, Mr. Pollinger and yes my husband Mr. Mazzie are men who would never partake in the in the RRR club who take away the the peoples voice. Did you forget about the 40,000 people denied their right to vote in deciding elections? That is purely un-american. That is the RRR club. While legal, downright dirty. Of course, in my opinion.

Next time you feel the need to tell someone to tell me to “backoff”, call me directly so I can tell you myself I am not fearful of any of you and will not back off. My number is all over the internet.

Will, how I would love to give you a hint. The inside world of politics is mind blowing. I have it in writing. I back up everything I post. In due time.

Donna, I was not offering them a membership. I simply stated that they all received vetting papers which would allow them to participate in our endorsement process. I am not interested in arguing with you, only clearing up the accusation you made about only members being considered in the vetting process.

Ms Heiss,
So you want to get the fact straight. Then include this. Ken Mazzie ran for clerk of the courts in 2008 as a Democrat and lost by 13% to the incumbent. He then did not like the Democrat party and knew he could not reach the general election by running against Jeff Atwater the Republican, nor Loranne Ausley the Democrat, so he then ran as an independent and received only 1.6% of all of the residents of Florida. So he has tried the Democrat party, tried Independent and history proving that he could not defeat Ms. Wadsworth as a Democrat, tried the Republican party hoping to draw some of the Democrat voters from 2008 to defeat Ms. Wadsworth in 2012. Is that the correct scenario. Does he have a party that he likes?? He has tried all of them!

No accusation, only fact. Way before the endorsements, Mr. U, (I can spell it out for you if you like) came up to a candidate and stated, and I quote: XYZ is getting the endorsement from the RRR club. Maybe you will be “cleansed in four years”.

Does the RRR feel they are so above the people that it is their job to “cleanse” and purify” the voters of Flagler County to believe only what they believe? Republicans, Democrats and Independents all have equal rights. Why must this club look down on anyone that is not of their belief. Democrats and Independents all have the same right as republicans. Has this club forgotten what century we are in?

In my opinion, the RRR is just a bully group. Has this club forgotten what is in their very own literature? QUOTE: “The rights and privileges of our Nation belong to its citizens.” Am I correct in assuming it means all citizens? Or just a select few that belong to what amounts to a high school gang.

For the record, I am a Republican, but more importantly, I am a humanitarian. I believe in equal rights for all and have proven it time and time again.

It is true, My husband, a lifelong Republican, (Proof to back that up) did switch party affiliations to run against the incumbent in 2008. The reason for this was to get through primary as the State of Florida’s Auditor Generals report was due out in October 2008. As we know, according to the state, the report was completed, however, someone asked for it to be withheld. It was finally released in April 2009. It is in black and white and you may read it for yourself. It is not very favorable. Had that report been released before the election, the outcome would have been very different. That is assuming you even care how your/our money was mis-appropriated.

It is also true, he ran as an independent in the State election. That proved very valuable. Knowledge gained there was how the government works on a state level. How agencies communicate between each other. The reason for running independent was purely for that knowledge. Everyone knows you don’t win an election by being an independent.

Well the Auditor Generals report is out. The facts are there and Ken Mazzie is back to his original roots of being a republican. You see, he actually cared more about helping the citizens, saving money, running an efficient office and opening communication between the BOCC and Clerks office. The office of the Clerk should, (like Volusia county), be non-partisan anyway, Afterall it is not an office that makes policy. So, there you have it. Ken Mazzie has a true desire to serve the community and and all of its citizens in the most effective, efficient and money saving manner.

Why would any candidate that was not a member of the RR club want to seek an endorsement from that club when it is well known that they would be endorsing their OWN MEMBER candidates, Ericksen, Wadsworth, Corbett , McDonald, Meeker, Stevens, etc? Especially the ones that had a WRI put into their race by the RR who wants to “control” things? If I were a candidate that was a non member, I would’ve stayed away too.

According to the Pollinger groupies and Mr. Mazzie’s wife the RRR is the Big Bad Wolf of Flagler County. For a grassroots organization consisting of concerned Republican voters with no past political experience I guess we must have struck a nerve with the local “powers that be” in our 6 short months of existence. Mr. Mazzie thought so highly of our organization he joined before he changed his mind and resigned – sound like a pattern with him? We make it clear to all prospective members that we are a grassroots bottom-up organization dedicated to restoring traditional values. We work within the Republican Party to promote the active participation of our members to endorse, support, and elect principled conservative Republican candidates.

ALL REPUBLICAN candidates were sent candidate questionnaires and invited to participate in the endorsement process (a stringent standard requiring a 2/3 vote of our membership). Several candidates chose not to participate (they were not excluded from consideration by the Assembly) for reasons known only to them.

Our organization is all about the principles of limited Constitutional government and for all those posting their Republican credentials here I remind you of what Ronald Reagan said. “A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs, which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell numbers.” Our goal is to represent certain fundamental beliefs in the tradition of Ronald Reagan that will not be compromised. We are working to provide a choice for the voters not just the candidates selected by the CofC and their friends.

@ Mr. Hamby In your last sentence you imply that you have some disdain for the CofC entering candidates for office. Some of YOUR MEMBER candidates are trustee members of the Chamber of Commerce, according to their website, in partcular Mr. Ericksen and Ms. Wadsworth?

Mr. Hamby, you are incorrect. The fact is Mr. Mazzie did join the RRR. Never once did he say he thought so highly of the organization. In fact, when Mr. Mazzie saw that the RRR shut out 40,000 voters is when he resigned fromThe RRR . Mr. Mazzie is committed to all the citizens of Flagler County. I quote you from your above statement: “We are working to provide a choice for the voters not just the candidates selected by the CofC and their friends.” How ironic Mr Hamby. A choice for what voters? All? Nope. Just YOUR select group of “friends”.

You can justify the actions of the RRR club all you want in your mind. Many citizens of Flagler County have had their rights taken away by the RRR. That is unacceptable. Many have changed party affiliation to have a voice. Don’t get too excited, they will be switching back. That is their right and one that should be respected. But then again, the RRR doesn’t respect anyone they don’t consider “PURE” and CLEANSED”. Two disgusting words that make my stomach churn.

Have respect for the people of Flagler County. ALL of them. We have the same rights. Although you may think otherwise, the RRR has offended many and the actions of the club prove it.

The Palm Coast City Charter provides the procedures to be followed for the occurrence of a vacancy of a City Council seat. Section 7(e)(2). The appointment is to last until the next regularly scheduled city election. Depending on when the vacancy occurs, either within the first two years of the term or the last two years, the open seat, once filled through the election, will serve the remaining two years of the term or the full term.

Magnolia, it is my understanding the city council will have an application process in front of the public to fill the seat being vacated by Mr. Meeker. I do intend to watch this process. I am unsure whether the public will be able to comment or not. Those are questions for the city council.

Mr. Mazzie is more then willing to speak directly to you and anyone else that has any questions you would like answered.

I am Donna Heiss, Ken Mazzie’s wife and campaign manager. I do not speak for him or anyone else. I have made it clear in my postings that they are of my opinion and beliefs. I am my own person and have that right to express myself under the constitution.

This is for the voters to decide who they want in the Sheriff’s Office in 2012. After reading this article it appears that Fleming is now winning by a nose. Sorry John, but this is your record. We keep hearing that you are running on your record. Here is a glimpse. Remember Folks, this is not Ray Stevens, Anne-Marie Shaffer or the Ronald Reagan Assembly people. It is just someone has has done some homework. I don’t want to hear that this is a smear. Infact, after reading this piece you can decide for yourself. Its a story about Chief John Pollinger and what he did to a hero on September 11, 2001. God Bless these officers that wear the uniform.

******** Story Begins Below ******

Chief says detective’s transfer not made lightly Officer back on patrol duty for returning to ground zero

Staff Writer
By Elaine van develde
Chief says detective’s
transfer not made lightly
Officer back on patrol duty for returning
to ground zero

Middletown Police Chief John Pollinger last week defended his controversial decision to transfer the commander of the detective division back to patrol duty for defying instructions not to return to ground zero at the World Trade Center.

“[Rubino] will lose $500 a year in take-home pay and will lose an unmarked take-home police car for added responsibilities,” Bradshaw said. “He was also given only three days’ notice before being placed on a different schedule that will dramatically impact his family life.”

According to Pollinger, Rubino made a decision to defy state and department directives and act on his own, guiding several other officers to do the same, in the midst of the ramifications of the national tragedy of the terrorist attacks on the United States on Sept. 11.

After having sent 24 officers to ground zero in New York City the day of the attacks himself, Pollinger said an edict was issued statewide to keep volunteers in their communities.

As a result, Pollinger issued a memo to supervisors to be conveyed to staff that read in part: “The efforts of the men and women of the department were outstanding on Sept. 11, 2001, for the residents of both New York as well as our local residents returning home. While individual officers have expressed their desire to return to N.Y.C. to assist, New York officials have repeatedly requested that those volunteers in any capacity, police included, be halted at this time. This is due to the fact that well-intentioned but untrained volunteers have overwhelmed the city at a time when organized groups specially trained in this type of rescue operation are a priority.”

Bradshaw said the volunteers to whom Pollinger was referring were not to be confused with trained police officers and emergency response but were the people who doled out food and the like. Pollinger said there was no confusion and has the teletype from the state police and other agencies to back his edict.

According to Pollinger, Rubino, out of a sense of misguided yet well-intentioned patriotism, voiced his opposition to the directive, defied it and took time off despite his superior’s wishes and organized efforts with other individual officers to return to New York on the Thursday and Friday after the Sept. 11 attack.

“When you have individuals deciding on their own what’s best for everyone, anarchy is the result,” he said. “There is a need to step back and see the bigger picture and how we can best help. When I’m asked to have my department step back in the interest of helping, that’s what I must do. I also understood the emotional issues we were all confronted with and tried to give this individual (Rubino) time to think about what he was doing.”

Despite Pollinger’s decision based on streamlining the chain of command through following higher ups’ orders, Bradshaw reinforced his, Rubino’s and others’ opinions that help was still needed, saying that they heard a plea on a local radio station for “anyone with a badge” and were almost begged to come back after going to the scene early on Sept. 11 when going to ground zero was sanctioned by Pollinger.

“They wanted us there,” said Bradshaw. “We had requests from sources at the New York Police Department and heard another request on a local radio station. We felt we had to respond and couldn’t ignore our duty to help with an American emergency.

“I’m outraged by this decision by Chief Pollinger to punish Detective. Lt. Rubino by a transfer for organizing an effort and going to New York to help, when he knew his help was needed and on his own time,” he continued.

“The reason I say this is: Lt. Rubino had gotten information that police officers were desperately needed at the pile rescue efforts. This information was borne out to be true by every officer who went up to New York City and did work on the rubble pile. The work was done at great personal risk to each officer and the ones who went up were all too willing to do it.

“A lot of people who died were residents of Middletown. That was one of the reasons that people wanted to go. The teletypes said volunteers were no longer needed at the site. That was true. They no longer needed any more people to hand out food and beverages. The N.Y.P.D. was keeping very close control over who got into ground zero. Only people allowed in were police officers firefighters and union card carrying iron workers.”

Bradshaw was one of those officers who went into the city despite the departmental order not to. He said the officers worked on bucket brigade, while emergency response was still considering the area a rescue site. He said many people were needed to do the basic duty of passing buckets of debris by hand as to not disturb sites with machinery that may hurt the injured under the rubble.

But Pollinger maintained his stance that, bucket brigade or not, by virtue of the actual teletypes he had received Bradshaw’s claims were unsubstantiated and a result of a borderline selfish desire to help, despite negative consequences implied by unsolicited assistance.

The state police teletype was transmitted to “all police receivers, county prosecutors and state police stations” on Sept. 11 at 10:49 p.m. and said, in part, “On behalf of (acting) Gov. (Donald) DiFrancesco, Attorney General (John J.) Farmer (Jr.) and Col. Carson J. Dunbar, thank you for your response to our call for assistance in New York City at the World Trade Center. Your cooperation and generosity are truly appreciated. At this time, we are deactivating the staging areas at the Meadowlands and Liberty State Park and releasing all emergency response groups to return to their communities. We are requesting that all emergency response groups remain in their communities unless specifically requested by the N.J. State Police, Office of Emergency Management …” The teletype was signed “by order of the superintendent, Carson J. Dunbar Jr., colonel, superintendent, New Jersey State Police.”

There was another teletype sent by the office of the Monmouth County Sheriff, Special Investigations, on Sept. 13, that said, in part, “New Jersey is still in a state of emergency status. Monmouth County police officers are still on standby alert status. The city of New York has not yet requested police assistance from the state of New Jersey. It is the opinion of the state Office of Emergency Management that New Jersey police officers may be needed in the future when police officers who are working at the scene of the World Trade Center reach the stage of exhaustion.”

It goes on to say that when that request is made clear it will be issued through the county Office of Emergency Management regarding equipment and manpower needs.

Again, on Sept. 17, a teletype was issued to all police receivers by Dennis Delfava, captain of the Emergency Management Section of the N.J. State Police. It reiterated, “county and police agencies are again requested not to send manpower into New York City. We have reports that individual police and firemen are traveling into the city on their own, using ferries and personally owned vehicles. The N.J.S.P. has staff in (the) N.Y.C. command post and has verified that all manpower and resource needs are presently being satisfied …”

According to Bradshaw all manpower needs were not being satisfied and being there, sanctioned or not, was proof. He said the officers defying the stay-at-home edict, worked all day on Sept. 13 at ground zero and by virtue of doing so, were, in fact needed.

He added that at about 10 p.m. on Sept. 13, Pollinger contacted Detective Sgt. Joseph Capriotti at the detective bureau in Middletown and instructed him to call the unsolicited officers back from New York.

“We worked all day in the rubble pile. It was like a medieval scene, with ants working on a pile, carefully trying to dig out, because people were believed to be alive. The N.Y.P.D. was exhausted. They did need us there. Once the rescue effort was abandoned and heavy equipment was brought in more recently, though, that was when they didn’t need us there. Not when we were there.”

Pollinger said before taking action, which he said could have been more extreme, he “waited more than 10 days after Sept. 14 when he told Rubino he had 24 hours to clear his head and think better of his actions.” Rubino did not budge on his belief that help was needed, and he was going and bringing others with him.

Pollinger said of Rubino’s fateful decision and Bradshaw’s move to make department personnel issues public: “More than 40 police officers were lost at ground zero and more than 300 firefighters. All of them served the city of New York. All had brothers up there — 41,000 strong in the N.Y.P.D. and 11,000 strong in the F.D.N.Y. — and all of those people had a greater stake in going to the scene there than anyone else, other than the families of the more than 6,000 civilians who were missing or killed.

“It is unconscionable to know that Wayne Bradshaw or anyone in the Middletown Police Department thinks they had a greater desire (to be involved the rescue and recovery effort) than any of those people who were directly affected,” Pollinger said.

“In this difficult time in our country, it is appalling that the time of our Police Department needs to be spent on reprimanding those officers who residents entrust with protecting them. Middletown alone lost many of its own residents. This department needs to truly focus on others’ needs, not to be superseded by a selfish need to be in the thick of a tragedy. Every American wanted to be there to help. We have to stay where we’re needed. That’s the best help we can offer. We didn’t know what was going to happen next on Sept. 11. Another thing to consider is that if every Police Department went to one spot, there would be no protecting their towns.”

Two officers were injured at ground zero, and Bradshaw was one of them. He tripped over another officer when running from a building purportedly ready to collapse and hit an already injured knee on the ground. Another officer broke a rib. Bradshaw is now on workmen’s compensation and working on “modified duty,” he said.

Plaintiffs Michael Rubino and Gerald Weimer (“the officers”) appeal from an
order of the District Court granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss made pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6). The case before us is the remnants of a confusing complaint
filed by six plaintiffs– four officers plus the wives of Weimer and Rubino– asserting
various causes of action against Defendants Township of Middletown (“Township”),
Township of Middletown Police Department (“Police Department”), Public Safety
Director Robert Czech (“Czech”), Police Chief John Pollinger (“Pollinger”), Police
Lieutenant Robert Morrell (“Morrell”), and others. Only the claims of Rubino and
Weimer are at issue before us. Rubino and Weimer contend that the District Court erred
in dismissing their allegations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that the defendants violated the
officer’s First Amendment rights and failed to train its employees.
We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed in the thorough and persuasive
opinion of the District Court. We add the following to underscore our own agreement
with that decision.

I. Facts and Procedural History

The facts and procedural history are complicated and adequately set forth in the
District Court opinion. Because we write only for the parties, we only recount the most
necessary of facts. The facts forming the basis of the appeal are related to two discrete
and disconnected events which the officers suggest are somehow linked.
Because the record does not indicate when the sergeant spoke to Rubino, we are1
unable to determine whether Rubino disobeyed Pollinger’s order to return to Middletown
by staying at Ground Zero until 4 AM.

The first incident, concerns primarily Rubino, and involves the officers’ activities
around September 11, 2001. On September 11, Rubino and other officers were directed
by Chief Pollinger to go to New York City on to assist with the rescue efforts. On
September 12, however, Pollinger declined to authorize Middletown police officers to
assist in New York City because he believed no assistance was needed from the
Middletown police. On September 13, Rubino informed Pollinger that assistance was
needed in New York City and that he wanted to go to New York to help. Pollinger
instructed Rubino that Middletown police officers were not to go to New York City, to
which Rubino replied that he would take a personal day off from work in order to go
assist. Pollinger initially said that he would not allow Rubino to use his personal day for
that purpose, but eventually relented when he realized Rubino was intent on going and
allowed a small group of officers, including Rubino and Weimer to go to New York City.

On September 13, a police sergeant called Rubino at Ground Zero to inform him that
Pollinger was ordering all Middletown officers to return. Rubino protested to the
sergeant that all the officers were being utilized, and the sergeant passed along the
information to Pollinger. Pollinger did not change his mind and insisted that all the
Middletown officers leave. Rubino worked at Ground Zero until 4 AM on September
14. On September 14 , Rubino was summoned to Pollinger’s office upon reporting to1 th
work. At that time, Pollinger stated no officers could assist even during their off-duty
time. Pollinger further ordered that no officer should wear a badge or any other item
identifying him as a Middletown police officer. At some point during this conversation,
Rubino commented that Morrell misrepresented the Middletown Police Department’s role
in the rescue efforts of September 11 and Pollinger became agitated.

Rubino alleges that he was retaliated in the following ways for his actions related
to September 11:

Effective September 28, 2001, with three days notice, Rubino was relieved
of his command and transferred to the Patrol Division as a shift
commander. Pollinger would not discuss the transfer with Rubino nor with
Rubino’s superior officer. Czech was quoted in a newspaper as stating that
Rubino had been reassigned because he had not complied with the
directives of a supervisor. As a result of this transfer, Rubino had to
purchase a car because he was no longer entitled to one from the Police
Department as was the case when he was a Detective Lieutenant.
In January 2002, a computer Rubino had ordered was missing and nearly
$800 was taken out of Rubino’s pay without notice or a hearing. Rubino
was charged with neglect of duty, but these charges were dismissed in
arbitration.

In Spring of 2002, Pollinger added an addendum to Rubino’s review
claiming that he was unprofessional and insubordinate without notifying
Rubino or his supervisor contrary to the rules.

At some unspecified date, Rubino requested to attend some training classes
and his requests were denied. He specifically noted that his request to
attend the Narcotics Officer Convention, which he attended every year since
1984, was denied.

The Police Department did not pay his dues for the National Narcotics
Association, in contravention of a fifteen year practice doing so.
Appellant Br. at 15-17.

The second incident, concerns primarily Weimer, and involves inappropriate
conduct on the part of Morrell. On or about April 20, 2002, Morrell sent a package
containing horse manure and a threatening note to the homes of Weimer and Rubino and
two other officers. Weimer went to Morrell’s residence to return the box and to
complain, but Morrell did not answer the door. It appears that Weimer left the box at
Morrell’s residence. Morrell contacted the police and accused Weimer of criminal
mischief while omitting that he himself had originally sent the package. For a time
period, Weimer was the subject of an Internal Affairs Investigation until Morrell admitted
to originally sending the package. Almost a month later, in May 2002, Morrell, in his
pick-up truck, followed Weimer through various Township streets for no apparent reason.
Weimer documented and reported this incident in a memo to Detective Lieutenant
Michael Cerame. Weimer and the other recipients eventually made a formal request for
an Internal Affairs Investigation. Shortly thereafter, Pollinger suggested that the Officers
seek counseling.

II. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to hear this appeal. This Court
exercises plenary review over a District Court’s grant of a motion to dismiss pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 65. We
take all factual allegations and reasonable inferences as true and views them in the light
At the outset, the District Court dismissed Morrell as a defendant because while2
there were ample allegations of his misfeasance, the Amended Complaint does not allege
that Morrell retaliated against the plaintiffs for exercise of protected speech. The Officers
challenge this ruling in their reply brief, but we find that the District Court correctly
concluded that the Amended Complaint did not sufficiently alleged a § 1983 claim
against Morrell for First Amendment violations.
most favorable to the Plaintiff. Morse v. Lower Merion School District, 132 F.3d 902,
906 (3d Cir. 1997). Any questions of law presented by this appeal are reviewed de novo.
United States v. Hendricks, 395 F.3d 173, 176 (3d Cir. 2005).

III. Discussion

The officers allege violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which provides a cause of
action against a person who, acting under color of state law, deprives another of a
constitutional or federal right. Gibson v. Superintendent of N.J. Dep’t of Law & Pub.
Safety-Division, 411 F.3d 427, 433 (3d. Cir. 2005) Thus, to state a claim under § 1983,
the officers must demonstrate “(1) of what constitutional or federal right [they were]
deprived, and (2) how [they were] deprived of that right under color of state law. Id. 2

A. First Amendment

We first address the officers’ claim that their First Amendment rights were
violated because they experienced retaliation for engaging in protected speech. Rubino
claims he experienced retaliation for expressing concern over the Police Department’s
response to the attacks of September 11, 2001. Weimer claims he experienced retaliation
for expressing his concern over Morrell’s behavior. A public employee’s retaliation
claim for engaging in protected First Amendment activity is evaluated under a three-step
process: (1) first, the plaintiff must establish the speech in question was protected in that
it involved a matter of public concern, and the public interest favoring the expression of
that speech must outweigh any injury the speech could cause to the “interest of the State,
as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its
employees,” (2) second, the plaintiff must show that protected activity was a substantial
or motivating factor in the alleged retaliatory action, (3) finally, the public employer can
rebut the claim by demonstrating that the same decision would have been reached even in
the absence of the protected conduct. Baldassare v. New Jersey, 250 F.3d 188, 194-95
(3d Cir. 2001) (citing Pickering v. Board of Educ. of Twp. High Sch. Dist. 205, Will
County, 391 U.S. 563, 568 (1968)). Both of the officers’ First Amendment claims fail to
satisfy the first step.

1. Rubino

We take no issue with Rubino’s contention, and the District Court’s conclusion,
that Rubino’s conversation with Pollinger expressing concern over the Police
Department’s response to September 11 was a matter of public concern. Rubino’s
concern, however, took the form of challenging Pollinger’s orders– persistently,
flagrantly, and in front of others. We agree with the District Court that Rubino’s
expression of his concern was outweighed by the public interest in maintaining
obedience, order, and discipline in the police department, especially in the time of crisis
The officers’ brief hints that Rubino also has a first amendment retaliation claim3
arising out of the incident with Morrell. This is wholly unpersuasive. While the
Amended Complaint maintains that Rubino joined the other officers in requesting an
internal affairs investigation of the incident with Morrell, the complaint does not identify
speech specifically made by Rubino with respect to this request, nor is there any link
made between the alleged retaliatory acts Rubino suffered and any speech he engaged in
with respect to Morrell’s activities.
that was the time period immediately following the attacks of September 11.
Accordingly, we discern no error with the District Court’s dismissal of Rubino’s First

Amendment claim. 3

2. Weimer

Weimer’s argument that his First Amendment rights were violated is similarly
unpersuasive. Weimer fails to show how his memo to Cerame, set out in the facts,
regarding Morrell’s behavior constitutes speech that is a “matter of public concern” as
opposed to speech asserting Weimer’s own interests and issues. Moreover, the only act
committed by Pollinger or any others in the police department directed towards Weimer
was the suggestion that Weimer, and the other officers, seek counseling. Morrell cannot
credibly construe Pollinger’s suggestion to seek counseling as retaliation when the
officers claim they were traumatized by Morrell’s actions. We therefore affirm the
District Court’s order with respect to the dismissal of Weimer’s First Amendment claim.

B. Failure to Train

Finally, the officers argue that the Township is liable under § 1983 for failing to
train, supervise, and monitor its employees. The District Court correctly noted that a
In the briefs submitted to this Court, the Officers note that no Defendants4
attempted to ascertain Morrell’s psychiatric stability, nor did the Township institute
policies or training relating to the identification and control of police officers who may
commit such conduct. The District Court did not have the opportunity to rule upon
whether the failure to provide such training would constitute deliberate indifference, but
nevertheless, we do not find it unreasonable that the Township did not mandate training
related to police officers who harass other police officers by sending horse manure
through the mail.
municipality can be held liable for failing to train its employees when the municipality’s
failure shows “a deliberate indifference to the rights of its inhabitants,” Canton v. Harris
489 U.S. 378, 389 (1989) (internal quotation marks omitted), and that no such deliberate
indifference on the part of the municipality was alleged.

The entirety of the Officers’ allegations with regard to this claim is as follows:
Defendant/Municipality. . . failed to properly train and supervise its
employees and agents and, as such, the violations that resulted, along with
failure to train, violate 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendant/Municipality failed to
train its agents to take proper investigatory and remedial action relating to
the officers’ fear for their safety in their workplace as detailed [in previous
paragraphs in the Amended Complaint].

This action violates 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because their actions violate
the Constitution of the United States, denying Plaintiff of life, liberty and
property and the pursuit of happiness, and hence, 42 U.S.C. 1983.

Appellant App. Vol II. at 107(a).

In the Amended Complaint, the Officers did not identify any examples of specific
training that the Township failed to provide. If the Officers were unable to provide4
specific examples of training needed, it cannot be said that the need for more or
additional training is so obvious as to constitute deliberate indifference on the part of the
Township. Therefore, we find no error in the District Court’s order dismissing the
officers’ failure to train claim.

IV. Conclusion

We have considered all of the arguments advanced by the parties and conclude that
no further discussion is necessary. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court will be
affirmed.